This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier

From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches List" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:04:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier
References: <24b520d20802281347y38351b34i8a2cabd61d6c6e26@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50360802281352h640ebeb6oe271377f82eb8ccd@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Doug Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > This little patch removes "auto" as a storage class specifier in
>  >  C++0x, per N2546. The scheme is simple: warn in C++98 mode that the
>  >  old meaning of "auto" is going away (but only if -Wc++0x-compat), and
>  >  error in C++0x mode because we don't yet support the new meaning of
>  >  "auto". Think of this as "paving the way" to the new "auto".
>  >
>  >  Okay for mainline, as soon as the C++ committee votes this into the
>  >  working paper on Saturday?
>
>  So why are they making C and C++ more incompatible?  That seems wrong
>  but what ever.
>
>  -- Pinski
>

Ask the C++ committee.  GCC mailing list is thw wrong place.

References:
- [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier
  - From: Doug Gregor
- Re: [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier
  - From: Andrew Pinski

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]